Court fight heats up over 52 pages of still-secret surveillance info

OAKLAND, CA—The Electronic Frontier Foundation's long quest to make key rulings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) public is nearing its end.

EFF lawyer Mark Rumold faced off with Department of Justice attorney Steven Bressler yesterday in the same courtroom they had sparred in 14 months ago. They were overseen by the same judge, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers.

Things weren't the same, though. The lawsuit has changed dramatically, due in part to the Snowden leaks about government surveillance, which began to appear in newspapers last June.

Further Reading

New declassifed documents show legal arguments over bulk metadata collection.

And the scope of the case has narrowed. That's partly because the EFF has focused its demands on what it believes are the most important documents: several still-secret FISC opinions, as well as one memo from the White House's Office of Legal Counsel, comprising some 52 pages. It's also narrowed because the Department of Justice has released some of the documents that were asked for. One batch was revealed in November and another was released in March, both posted to the Tumblr blog "IC on the Record," part of the Obama Administration's response to the Snowden leaks.

The most striking revelation from those documents was that some FISC judges sharply criticized the National Security Agency's record of compliance with rules the court had set out for handling its giant database of phone calls and other data.

On Tuesday, the two sides argued over how to dispose of the remainder of this case. Bressler argued that the remaining documents are secret and can't be made public, while Rumold said many of them could be made public and that the judge should review them and decide which ones to release.

“A leak to the press does not declassify”

"Those [released documents] have revealed that the oversight that was supposed to be functioning wasn't working in some instances," Rumold told Gonzalez-Rogers during argument yesterday, advocating the release of more documents. "The FISC very nearly shut down the NSA's programs because of repeated violations of FISC orders. And the government claimed that was information the public didn't have the right to know."

The right to know is more important than ever before, said Rumold, with Congress considering whether or not to reform surveillance rules and how to do so. "The government is continuing to hide under identical claims that were proven to be false a year ago," he concluded. "There's no reason to believe they're more likely to be true now."

When Bressler had the chance to respond, he said that the fact that some material had been made public doesn't mean that more should. "There's one thing Mr. Rumold said that I would agree with," began the DOJ lawyer. "Classified material was unlawfully taken and exposed. But when The Guardian and The Washington Post published it, that didn't declassify it. A leak to the press does not declassify something."

"The government chose to make public a great number of these documents," he continued. "The government shouldn't be penalized for releasing some information when it's still necessary to keep some secret." The government's choice to keep a "handful of documents" secret under exemptions to FOIA law should be respected, he argued.

"Given the sensitivity of the issues, I'm certainly not ruling from the bench on these matters," said Gonzalez-Rogers, who gave no indication as to how she would rule or even what parts of the argument she was most interested in. She took arguments from each lawyer in turn, simply asking for the argument without any specific questions.

At one point, she noted, "We are down to 52 pages from 1,000."

"I don't question that the government has released some information," said Rumold. He noted that the EFF was now asking for a subset of around 200 pages, so the withholding of 52 pages wasn't a small or meaningless fraction.

What’s still secret?

Outside the courtroom, Rumold spoke to Ars about the additional information about US surveillance he's hoping to make public.

"There are still other bulk collection programs we believe are operating under Section 215 [the Patriot Act]," Rumold said. In November, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journalreported that the CIA was collecting Americans' financial records, including bulk data regarding money transfers through companies like Western Union. Its legal justification was the same one used to create the NSA's massive telephony database—that FISC had ruled it legal under Section 215.

Other documents that have been revealed suggest that in addition to the three-hops-out search, there's another kind of search that the NSA is doing with its bulk telephony database. Rumold says the documents the EFF continues to fight for could shed light on what kind of search that is.

The still-secret Office of Legal Counsel memo was sent to the Department of Commerce and regards US Census data—detailed information on the living conditions, family situation, and income of millions of citizens. The Census data is supposed to be kept secret, even from other government agencies. "Did they say Section 215 trumps the Census rules?" asked Rumold.

38 Reader Comments

You know what declassified those documents? When President Obama got on national TV and addressed those documents. You can't both discuss and not discuss classified material, and the president has the ability to declassify anything.

The still-secret Office of Legal Counsel memo was sent to the Department of Commerce and regards US Census data—detailed information on the living conditions, family situation, and income of millions of citizens. The Census data is supposed to be kept secret, even from other government agencies. "Did they say Section 215 [the Patriot Act] trumps the Census rules?" asked Rumold.

The 2020 census is going to be a shadow of the 2010 once this gets out.

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

The anonymized data is made available once it's been processed. The NSA wanted the personally identifiable information. A similar policy is in place for the DHHS's data.

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

For one thing, because people are compelled by law to provide information for the census. If that information is used for intelligence purposes, it amounts to a search without probable cause.

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

The Census shares tons of data publicly, and it gets used in all kinds of ways. But only anonymized data.

If you take a look at a census long form, which gets sent to something like 1 in 6 people, you can see it asks for tons of private data... how you get to work, are you on welfare, what disabilities you have, income, rent/mortgage payments, etc.

The government has all kinds of your personal data, most likely gathered from tax info, dmv data, police records, census data, etc. Makes perfect sense that a DHS type agency would have all this gathered, correlated and searchable in a database.

Actually, I know this as a fact as my girlfriend's father was an executive for Ernst and Young and through his government connections he was given an account to that database. I was rather shocked when my girlfriend was able to tell me who I was roommates with 12 years ago when living in SF.

This kind of thing is actually what concerns me most about the tools the NSA has built. What kind of back doors are built into these and what kind of access has been doled out to their wealthy and well connected cigar room buddies?

These agencies say they have policies of accountability, but when they're cloaked in so much secrecy how can they possibly be 100% effective? Without transparency, people's personal ambitions are always going to find and exploit the cracks in the system.

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc.

Detailed census data is kept secret for 70 years after it has been collected. It would be a real shame if the NSA got access to this data, and would undermine the government's work in collecting it if people knew the government couldn't be trusted with it.

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

For one thing, integrity of the data.

Think when NSA targets Muslims, how likely a Muslim is going to state his/hers religion when he knows that NSA is going to use that for threat estiment.

Unfortunately integrity might already be lost when people suspect the personal data is leaking to NSA.

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

You don't have a legal choice when it comes to the census. If you get the long form, the law says you have to fill it out. Whether "they" will come after you is another matter, but the law says you fill out the form.

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

You don't have a legal choice when it comes to the census. If you get the long form, the law says you have to fill it out. Whether "they" will come after you is another matter, but the law says you fill out the form.

Not filling out the form means a census worker visits you, and asks you all those questions.

If you get the long form, the law says you have to fill it out. Whether "they" will come after you is another matter, but the law says you fill out the form.

If the government wants personal information, they need a warrant. They pestered me about my form for a couple weeks in the 2010 Census period, but I refused anything but the number. The form may instruct you to complete it under penalty, but there is *no law* that says you have to give anything except the answer for which the Census is mandated by the Constitution, which is "enumeration."

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

You don't have a legal choice when it comes to the census. If you get the long form, the law says you have to fill it out. Whether "they" will come after you is another matter, but the law says you fill out the form.

Not filling out the form means a census worker visits you, and asks you all those questions.

Then I suggest you lie in your census response. The constitution says the census is to count the population. Period.

Reading this, I'm still just blown away by the shear brazen arrogance this was all done in - the CIA is collecting financial records for U.S. citizens? The NSA etc. were using census data that was supposed to be walled off from the rest of the government? (sure, why not if they only follow the laws they want when they want).

Sure is good we have a President who was a constitutional scholar to make sure we don't get out of bounds with regards to the constitution and its original vision for the U.S..

The former East German Government would surely be proud of the surveillance state the U.S. has constructed for its own citizens (and the rest of humanity) and whose government is fighting tenaciously to preserve and expand upon.

When the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan suspected that inoculations were being used as a proxy for DNA collection in a nominal effort to catch Osama Bin Laden, they started attacking, if not killing, the health workers tasked with vaccination work. Due to the shortsightedness of the CIA, which was the agency that undertook the inoculation subterfuge, whole sections of those countries (if not others) experienced significant reductions in those covered by vaccinations. Diseases not seen in volume for many decades are now experiencing a resurgence strong enough to have ripple effects outside of the regions of their occurrence.

Now, extrapolate the impact of the inoculation subterfuge, but this time push it to the United States.

If the general population knows that the government is going to profile them based upon their Census answers, how much accurate information can they expected to be collected? As of the last Census in the United States, fundamentalists of both politics and religion were raising their voices and telling the populace not to fill out the Census.

Reading this, I'm still just blown away by the shear brazen arrogance this was all done in - the CIA is collecting financial records for U.S. citizens? The NSA etc. were using census data that was supposed to be walled off from the rest of the government? (sure, why not if they only follow the laws they want when they want).

Sure is good we have a President who was a constitutional scholar to make sure we don't get out of bounds with regards to the constitution and its original vision for the U.S..

The former East German Government would surely be proud of the surveillance state the U.S. has constructed for its own citizens (and the rest of humanity) and whose government is fighting tenaciously to preserve and expand upon.

Sweet Jesus I should have taken the blue pill...

Absolute concurrence with your post...the NSA is behaving much like the Stasi of East Germany during Cold War.

When the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan suspected that inoculations were being used as a proxy for DNA collection in a nominal effort to catch Osama Bin Laden, they start attacking, if not killing, the health workers tasked with vaccination work. Due to the shortsightedness of the CIA, which was the agency that undertook the inoculation subterfuge, whole sections of those countries (if not others) experienced significant reductions in those covered by vaccinations. Diseases not seen in volume for many decades are now experiencing a resurgence strong enough to have ripple effects outside of the regions of their occurrence.

Now, extrapolate the impact of the inoculation subterfuge, but this time push it to the United States.

If the general population knows that the government is going to profile them based upon their Census answers, how much accurate information can they expected to be collected? As of the last Census in the United States, fundamentalists of both politics and religion were raising their voices and telling the populace not to fill out the Census.

What do you think they'll say come the next Census?

Either a revolt, or simply stick to "number in household" and all the rest, be damned.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but courts have very broad power - they can order almost anything that they can make a case for (i.e. convince the higher courts on). This would include ordering a document declassified.

The only justification for not bringing classified documents into a court case is the potential harm to government interests. Obviously, justice (and constitutional rights) trumps a great many of these interests. The actual state of being classified is a formal declaration that the disclosure of the document would, in some way, harm government interests. Of course, currently classification occurs automatically on so many things that I would not be horribly surprised if there was some copy of a cafeteria menu that had managed to become TS.

Regardless, there is clearly no possible harm from admitting into evidence documents that have already been published by newspapers, and so there is no justification to deny them to the court. Any attempts to do so cannot be seen as anything more than an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Documents that are still unknown to the public could be harmful enough to warrant them not being publicly disclosed. However, the judge should absolutely be allowed to review them - the broad powers of a federal judge mean that there is simply no harm they can do with secret information they can't already do with their authority (arguably, they have the power to determine their own need to know, subject only to the appellate courts above them, and by virtue of the scrutiny and history in the position should be considered at least as trustworthy as any random TS cleared person, if not far more so considering the proliferation of the clearance... mainly because of how bloated classification has gotten). Secondarily, allowing classification (an executive process, enabled by legislation) to overrule the judiciary's power to determine facts is an unacceptable intrusion into the independence of the judiciary; an independence that is often the sole recourse against government abuses.

In short, there is no justification for denying published documents from being entered into evidence. Further, there is no justification for preventing the judge from reviewing unpublished documents for relevance, or introducing them under seal.

We also have to consider the review of documents by the plaintiff's lawyers, so they can make their case. (It is assumed the government will just handwave clearance for their own lawyers if the documents are admitted.) Lawyers, by nature of their profession, keep secrets of significant importance regularly. If anything, they have a more proven track record of keeping secrets than most people with TS clearance do I'd expect - to deny them access to documents the judge deems relevant would be nothing more than hiding behind the rules to avoid justice. That would of course be highly unethical, and the judge should absolutely use her authority to overrule the government if they try to do so.

P.S. It strikes me as odd to describe the judge as overruling the government, as they are part of it and wielding its authority. I suppose it would be more accurate to describe it as overruling the administration, which generally refers to the executive and majority of the legislative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but courts have very broad power - they can order almost anything that they can make a case for (i.e. convince the higher courts on). This would include ordering a document declassified.

The only justification for not bringing classified documents into a court case is the potential harm to government interests. Obviously, justice (and constitutional rights) trumps a great many of these interests. The actual state of being classified is a formal declaration that the disclosure of the document would, in some way, harm government interests. Of course, currently classification occurs automatically on so many things that I would not be horribly surprised if there was some copy of a cafeteria menu that had managed to become TS.

Regardless, there is clearly no possible harm from admitting into evidence documents that have already been published by newspapers, and so there is no justification to deny them to the court. Any attempts to do so cannot be seen as anything more than an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Documents that are still unknown to the public could be harmful enough to warrant them not being publicly disclosed. However, the judge should absolutely be allowed to review them - the broad powers of a federal judge mean that there is simply no harm they can do with secret information they can't already do with their authority (arguably, they have the power to determine their own need to know, subject only to the appellate courts above them, and by virtue of the scrutiny and history in the position should be considered at least as trustworthy as any random TS cleared person, if not far more so considering the proliferation of the clearance... mainly because of how bloated classification has gotten). Secondarily, allowing classification (an executive process, enabled by legislation) to overrule the judiciary's power to determine facts is an unacceptable intrusion into the independence of the judiciary; an independence that is often the sole recourse against government abuses.

In short, there is no justification for denying published documents from being entered into evidence. Further, there is no justification for preventing the judge from reviewing unpublished documents for relevance, or introducing them under seal.

We also have to consider the review of documents by the plaintiff's lawyers, so they can make their case. (It is assumed the government will just handwave clearance for their own lawyers if the documents are admitted.) Lawyers, by nature of their profession, keep secrets of significant importance regularly. If anything, they have a more proven track record of keeping secrets than most people with TS clearance do I'd expect - to deny them access to documents the judge deems relevant would be nothing more than hiding behind the rules to avoid justice. That would of course be highly unethical, and the judge should absolutely use her authority to overrule the government if they try to do so.

P.S. It strikes me as odd to describe the judge as overruling the government, as they are part of it and wielding its authority. I suppose it would be more accurate to describe it as overruling the administration, which generally refers to the executive and majority of the legislative.

Article 1 Section 5 Subsection 3 Clause 1: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy;

In short, you're wrong. Ultimately only Congress is the final arbiter of what is and isn't secret according to the Constitution because everything the Government does flows from authority from Congress that is supposed to be entered into the Congressional Journal. Congress created the policies and laws that allow for the classification of government acts and data. Unless Congress specifically tells the Judiciary that it can meddle here, which it has in very limited instances, the Judiciary is locked out of the types of decisions you want them to make. Allowing the Government of the US to classify things and to determine what is and isn't classified is a power granted solely to Congress at the Constitutional level. If Congress says it's secret, then the Judicial branch is Constitutionally required to agree with Congress.

I don't particularly like that, and wish it was different. But I'm not sure how to derive a system that allows for secrecy that doesn't involve human judgment at some level and is therefore corruptible and doesn't look an awful lot like the system we have now for over site, just with better people running it.

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

You don't have a legal choice when it comes to the census. If you get the long form, the law says you have to fill it out. Whether "they" will come after you is another matter, but the law says you fill out the form.

AFAIK demanding answers to long form is legally questionable and people who contest that and do not fill it out do not get fined nor sued. Of course those that do fill it out are considered to have provided that info 'voluntarily' so from gov't perspective everything is A-OK Short form must be filled out, I think. EDIT: but I see there are people who disagree with that as well. Interesting.

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

The Census shares tons of data publicly, and it gets used in all kinds of ways. But only anonymized data.

If you take a look at a census long form, which gets sent to something like 1 in 6 people, you can see it asks for tons of private data... how you get to work, are you on welfare, what disabilities you have, income, rent/mortgage payments, etc.

OK., but if the data is collected on behalf of the people for the benefit of the people, then who get to use it and for what purpose?

Certainly it is not secure at the point of collection.

Or is there something special about data in aggregate that makes it more powerful than data in isolation?

AFAIK demanding answers to long form is legally questionable and people who contest that and do not fill it out do not get fined nor sued. Of course those that do fill it out are considered to have provided that info 'voluntarily' so from gov't perspective everything is A-OK Short form must be filled out, I think. EDIT: but I see there are people who disagree with that as well. Interesting.

I don't know if they've ever actually prosecuted anyone, but they certainly can be persistent. My girlfriend refused to fill out the long form, and they only recently stopped bugging her about it, including showing up at the door. The fact the harassment went on after the census was supposedly complete implies the data is wanted for other purposes.

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

Actually, that data is incredibly important. It determines, among other things, where 300 billion dollars each year in public funds are spent based on population count and in many cases, programs designed to help people of low income or of minority races. Refusal to fill out the forms and talk to census employees is far more common in low income neighborhoods, who frequently have good reason not to want to give information to someone who knocks on the door claiming to be from the government. This results in incorrect data, and a disproportionate amount of money being spent in affluent areas. Of course, we could get a more accurate count if we used computer modeling to perform the census, but, since giving public dollars to the affluent is the Republican mission statement, they insist that computer modeling is unconstitutional.

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

For one thing, because people are compelled by law to provide information for the census. If that information is used for intelligence purposes, it amounts to a search without probable cause.

U.S. Census responses are mostly mandated by law. Its a $100 or $500 fine for not complying or providing false information.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ ... chapter-IIThat does not mean People cannot practice nullification of these types of laws. Laws are a two-way street. If you want our compliance the Government needs to comply with the Constitution and applicable laws [4th Amendment].

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

Actually, that data is incredibly important. It determines, among other things, where 300 billion dollars each year in public funds are spent based on population count and in many cases, programs designed to help people of low income or of minority races. Refusal to fill out the forms and talk to census employees is far more common in low income neighborhoods, who frequently have good reason not to want to give information to someone who knocks on the door claiming to be from the government. This results in incorrect data, and a disproportionate amount of money being spent in affluent areas. Of course, we could get a more accurate count if we used computer modeling to perform the census, but, since giving public dollars to the affluent is the Republican mission statement, they insist that computer modeling is unconstitutional.

Another reason why redistribution of federal funds based on Census surveys is so ridiculous. Cut federal revenue and keep these funds with states or with the People.

AFAIK demanding answers to long form is legally questionable and people who contest that and do not fill it out do not get fined nor sued. Of course those that do fill it out are considered to have provided that info 'voluntarily' so from gov't perspective everything is A-OK Short form must be filled out, I think. EDIT: but I see there are people who disagree with that as well. Interesting.

I don't know if they've ever actually prosecuted anyone, but they certainly can be persistent. My girlfriend refused to fill out the long form, and they only recently stopped bugging her about it, including showing up at the door. The fact the harassment went on after the census was supposedly complete implies the data is wanted for other purposes.

Our search for more information yielded a Jan. 9, 2013, commentary by David Whiting of the Orange County (Calif.) Register quoting a bureau spokeswoman, Jennifer Smits, saying that nobody had been fined for failing to participate to date. By telephone, bureau spokeswoman Stacy Gimbel Vidal told us that remains so; no fines have been levied. The bureau, she said, is "really not in the business of prosecuting people who don’t comply."On July 18, 2012, Andrew Reamer, a research professor at George Washington University, told a U.S. Senate subcommittee that the bureau had not prosecuted someone for not responding to a survey since the 1960 census. Not quite: Bureau spokesman Brian Lavin told us by email that no one has been prosecuted for failing to respond to a survey since the 1970 census.In his testimony, Reamer also explained why the potential fine had escalated from the $100 set in law in 1929. He said that figure was superseded in the 1980s by a comprehensive law stipulating a fine of up to $5,000 for any criminal misdemeanor or infraction.In 2012, Vidal told us by email, less than 8,000 of the nation’s ACS recipients refused to respond; the survey had a 97 percent response rate and it has had a 97 percent to 98 percent response rate since being fully implemented in 2005, Vidal said by email.http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... rvey-law-/

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

You don't have a legal choice when it comes to the census. If you get the long form, the law says you have to fill it out. Whether "they" will come after you is another matter, but the law says you fill out the form.

AFAIK demanding answers to long form is legally questionable and people who contest that and do not fill it out do not get fined nor sued. Of course those that do fill it out are considered to have provided that info 'voluntarily' so from gov't perspective everything is A-OK Short form must be filled out, I think. EDIT: but I see there are people who disagree with that as well. Interesting.

Why does the US Government need to know what race people are that live at a certain address, what the income levels are, etc and why all year round? "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct".... US Constitution Art I, Sec 2.The only requirement is a count of bodies every 10 years.

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc.Detailed census data is kept secret for 70 years after it has been collected. It would be a real shame if the NSA got access to this data, and would undermine the government's work in collecting it if people knew the government couldn't be trusted with it.

Other government agencies are prohibited from acquiring Census data, yet they do. In fact the Census turned over information to the FBI and Secret Service in WWII to gain information to intern Japanese-Amercians.http://www.toad.com/gnu/census.html

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

You don't have a legal choice when it comes to the census. If you get the long form, the law says you have to fill it out. Whether "they" will come after you is another matter, but the law says you fill out the form.

Not filling out the form means a census worker visits you, and asks you all those questions.

And you tell them to take a hike. When they come back, you tell them to take a hike. When they come back, you tell them that they are harassing you and you have nothing to say to them. They add you as +1 to the national population and never come back. [personal experience]

Why would the Census data be kept secret? What's the point of collecting all that information if it can't be used to set and implement policy or does that only refer to identifying information (I thought the Census was anonymized)?

The Census shares tons of data publicly, and it gets used in all kinds of ways. But only anonymized data.

If you take a look at a census long form, which gets sent to something like 1 in 6 people, you can see it asks for tons of private data... how you get to work, are you on welfare, what disabilities you have, income, rent/mortgage payments, etc.

OK., but if the data is collected on behalf of the people for the benefit of the people, then who get to use it and for what purpose?

Certainly it is not secure at the point of collection.

Or is there something special about data in aggregate that makes it more powerful than data in isolation?

One wonders.

Well that is certainly the NSA's contention. "We have to collect the whole haystack to find the needles"

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

You don't have a legal choice when it comes to the census. If you get the long form, the law says you have to fill it out. Whether "they" will come after you is another matter, but the law says you fill out the form.

AFAIK demanding answers to long form is legally questionable and people who contest that and do not fill it out do not get fined nor sued. Of course those that do fill it out are considered to have provided that info 'voluntarily' so from gov't perspective everything is A-OK Short form must be filled out, I think. EDIT: but I see there are people who disagree with that as well. Interesting.

Why does the US Government need to know what race people are that live at a certain address, what the income levels are, etc and why all year round? "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct".... US Constitution Art I, Sec 2.The only requirement is a count of bodies every 10 years.

2010 census short form asked for number of occupants, their names, sex, date of birth, race, dwelling type and phone number

I would think name/DOB helps eliminate duplicates (e.g., students who might be counted elsewhere, despite clear instructions) while race in my view is voluntary contribution to demographers (should be OK to leave it out).

There are many laws on book not explicitly defined in Constitution, so one cannot rely solely on that document and ultimately it is up to courts to say whether something is compatible or goes against it. From link earlier:

13 U.S. Code § 223 - Refusal, by owners, proprietors, etc., to assist census employeesWhoever, being the owner, proprietor, manager, superintendent, or agent of any hotel, apartment house, boarding or lodging house, tenement, or other building, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary or by any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, acting under the instructions of the Secretary, to furnish the names of the occupants of such premises, or to give free ingress thereto and egress therefrom to any duly accredited representative of such Department or bureau or agency thereof, so as to permit the collection of statistics with respect to any census provided for in subchapters I and II of chapter 5 of this title, or any survey authorized by subchapter IV or V of such chapter insofar as such survey relates to any of the subjects for which censuses are provided by such subchapters I and II, including, when relevant to the census or survey being taken or made, the proper and correct enumeration of all persons having their usual place of abode in such premises, shall be fined not more than $500.

I do not know whether constitutionality of this has ever been tested in court. In the end nobody can compel you to do anything you do not want to do, they can only impose some penalty on you (with rare exceptions). My gut feeling is they do not want this to end up in court because they get enough 'voluntary' responses to their invasive long form (and they would likely lose?).

EDIT: apparently their long form was rebranded to American Community Survey, doesn't make it any less invasive (read PDF only at your own risk, their audacity sure boils my blood)

Census data is kept secret because it is highly detailed accounting of the citizenry. It has names, addresses, ethnicity, job, salary, etc..

It might be highly detailed for people who want to give away their privacy, but its sole purpose is to get an accounting of how many people live at an address. Stop giving out additional information.

You don't have a legal choice when it comes to the census. If you get the long form, the law says you have to fill it out. Whether "they" will come after you is another matter, but the law says you fill out the form.

AFAIK demanding answers to long form is legally questionable and people who contest that and do not fill it out do not get fined nor sued. Of course those that do fill it out are considered to have provided that info 'voluntarily' so from gov't perspective everything is A-OK Short form must be filled out, I think. EDIT: but I see there are people who disagree with that as well. Interesting.

Why does the US Government need to know what race people are that live at a certain address, what the income levels are, etc and why all year round? "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct".... US Constitution Art I, Sec 2.The only requirement is a count of bodies every 10 years.

2010 census short form asked for number of occupants, their names, sex, date of birth, race, dwelling type and phone numberhttp://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/ ... 2010en.pdfI would think name/DOB helps eliminate duplicates (e.g., students who might be counted elsewhere, despite clear instructions) while race in my view is voluntary contribution to demographers (should be OK to leave it out).There are many laws on book not explicitly defined in Constitution, so one cannot rely solely on that document and ultimately it is up to courts to say whether something is compatible or goes against it. From link earlier:13 U.S. Code § 223 - Refusal, by owners, proprietors, etc., to assist census employeesWhoever, being the owner, proprietor, manager, superintendent, or agent of any hotel, apartment house, boarding or lodging house, tenement, or other building, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary or by any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, acting under the instructions of the Secretary, to furnish the names of the occupants of such premises, or to give free ingress thereto and egress therefrom to any duly accredited representative of such Department or bureau or agency thereof, so as to permit the collection of statistics with respect to any census provided for in subchapters I and II of chapter 5 of this title, or any survey authorized by subchapter IV or V of such chapter insofar as such survey relates to any of the subjects for which censuses are provided by such subchapters I and II, including, when relevant to the census or survey being taken or made, the proper and correct enumeration of all persons having their usual place of abode in such premises, shall be fined not more than $500.I do not know whether constitutionality of this has ever been tested in court. In the end nobody can compel you to do anything you do not want to do, they can only impose some penalty on you (with rare exceptions). My gut feeling is they do not want this to end up in court because they get enough 'voluntary' responses to their invasive long form (and they would likely lose?).EDIT: apparently their long form was rebranded to American Community Survey, doesn't make it any less invasive (read PDF only at your own risk, their audacity sure boils my blood)https://www.census.gov/history/www/prog ... urvey.htmlhttps://www.census.gov/acs/www/Download ... uest14.pdf

Good followup. I personally did/do not have any problem telling them to pack sand. I know most people comply.

Part of the problem is that there are so many laws. Especially, laws that try and circumvent the Constitution. The Founding Fathers added the enumeration language and then the government takes that simple principle and gets all sorts of meta data or personal data and then uses that for purposes it was not designed. It was included in the Section of the Constitution for apportionment of Representative and taxes. Boils my blood too.